Arizona Law SB 1467 Would Make It Illegal to Teach Law, History, or Literature

SB 1467, newly introduced in the Arizona State Senate, would force schools and universities to suspend, fine, and ultimately fire any teacher or professor who “engage[d] in speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the federal communications commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio.”

For the first offense, you’d get a one-week suspension without pay. For the second offense, two weeks. For the third, a pink slip.

As Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, this law would not only block the teaching of such classics as Ulysses, The Canterbury Tales, and Catcher in the Rye, it’d prohibit historians and law professors from competently discussing campus free speech regulations, since the most important Supreme Court case in that field hinged on a jacket with the slogan “Fuck The Draft” written on it.

It’s also worth noting, as Lukianoff does, that the bill would regulate professors’ actions outside the classroom, which means that merely writing the paragraph above — in a blogpost, a scholarly article, even a private email — would get you suspended.

But it’s even worse than that.

Note the language of the bill: You’re violating the law if you engage “in speech or conduct” that would violate FCC standards if “broadcast on television or radio.” Not public speech or conduct. Speech or conduct, full stop.

If this law passes, it will be illegal for any “person who provides classroom instruction” in the state of Arizona to have sex.

There is no ‘free speech’ .If you say “fuck off judge” you will surely be penalized.Even in a pizza parlor.If women are around a whole new ethic comes into play,whether you agree or not. If you smash your hand on a door and use the f-word or just swear like a sailor,someone will say “watch your language they’re women present” and now the dynamic has changed again.If women want equallity in pay,first we need to have an equil dialog,based on equality and not favoritism for either sex.Now,AZ proposes a law that furthers the divide of the sexes,while undermining the education of todays students.That’s just freakin’ great.Now not only do we have to drag Arizona back to 20th century ethical levels,the students will need to go out of state to get a well rounded education in the 21st century of today!

Kirk- clearly you misunderstand the concept of “free speech”. The 1st amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It applies only to the government attempting to legally restrict the rights of individuals. There are exceptions for including obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud and speech integral to criminal conduct. There are federal criminal law statutory prohibitions covering all the common law exceptions other than defamation, of which there are civil law statutory prohibitions, as well as making false statements in “matters within the jurisdiction” of the federal government, speech related to information decreed to be related to national security such as military and classified information,[80] false advertising, perjury, privileged communications, trade secrets, copyright, and patents. It does NOT free you from the consequences of the reactions of other individuals to your words. If they do something illegal, they may still be prosecuted for doing it. For instance, if you walk into a bar and refer to the female companion of a 6’5,” 320 lb. brawny gentleman as a “bitch” or a “ho”, he may be prosecuted for pounding you into the ground. You, on the other hand, won’t get much sympathy (if any) from the judge for having said something profoundly rude and stupid, and the law the defender of the lady’s honor will have broken are the laws against assault, not laws against free speech, since he isn’t the government. On the other hand, he may even be found innocent of that, based on the legal concept of “fighting words.” (Descriptions of right to free speech ganked from Wikipedia, inasmuch as I was familiar with them to be accurate.)

[…] yet Arizona stands out as the state constantly in the news for bills that challenge the status quo and sanity. Looking at these rules as flaws is a place to start, but I have yet to find what really is the […]

[…] “SB 1467, newly introduced in the Arizona State Senate, would force schools and universities to suspe….”” Mind you, not publicspeech or conduct. Any speech or conduct. Got it? So mind your language when you slip in the bathtub because your neighbors might hear and there goes your job. As Angus Johnston points out, “If this law passes, it will be illegal for any “person who provides classroom instruction” in the state of Arizona to have sex. Or pee. Ever.” […]

It’s no longer concerned with doing any actual, measurable good at all — legislation’s sole purpose these days is to get someone off their back, get someone to dip into their pockets, or appeal to clueless voters.

Obviously we pay lawmakers to be stupid and waste time since this if it passes will get overturned as being unconstitutional. Bloody fools unite! Look at New Hampshire where there is a bill pending that “would mandate that bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties include a direct quote from the Magna Carta citing the source of the individual right or liberty as outlined in the charter.” (Source Boston Globe)

[…] requirements of our instructors, and for you as well if you take the proffered position. You will not be allowed to have sex ever — that would be conduct unbecoming. And you will not be allowed to urinate at any time, […]

[…] but the proposed ban extends even to college professors. And that’s not the worst of it, says Angus Johnston at Student Activism. The bill is so badly worded that, in its current form, it would ban swearing in scholarly […]

“f this law passes, it will be illegal for any “person who provides classroom instruction” in the state of Arizona to have sex.”

This used to be the case in every state, or almost so. It wasn’t actually illegal for public schoolteachers, all of them unmarried women, to have sex but if they even seemed likely to have sex — that is, if they became engaged to marry — they were forced to resign their positions. Couldn’t have schoolkids watch with horror as their teacher’s belly swelled. Those strictures only began to ease in the 1950s and ’60s.

1. Angus, I was led to your blog by your headline alone and the comments it produced. As a blog writer, I’m sure you feel the need to create sensation in order to draw eyeballs. Congratulations, mission accomplished. But I think I’m the only one in my circle who actually bothered to read your blog posting and furthermore the bill, rather than just re-posting your summary headline elsewhere and calling it a ‘fact’.

2. Did you try to contact Lori Klein, the senator who introduced the legislation, and get her context and explanation? Where the story becomes more interesting is her stated stance toward preventing government interference and protecting individuals’ rights. This bill seems inconsistent with that advertised stance.

MWT, the consternation over the piece’s title seems to be coming mostly from Reddit. I didn’t post this piece at Reddit, and I didn’t choose the headline that was used there. Most of my traffic comes from platforms where the title of a blogpost doesn’t have much to do with how many eyeballs it gets, and honestly creating buzz was the last thing on my mind when I wrote it.

[…] only would this bill get dozens of books chucked out of the curriculum, it apparently is so badly written that it would make a criminal out of any teachers who went home and said to a friend, “This […]

This is a terrible bill…I could understand so in preschool through high school, but that should be a no brainer to teachers. But as a college student, this bill is disgusting. You might as well limit our relationships to our teachers (because WE ALL KNOW they are not human beings like ourselves). What next? A teacher can’t give a decent opinion on a subject and really get the class involved without getting fired?

[…] only would this bill get dozens of books chucked out of the curriculum, it apparently is so badly written that it would make a criminal out of any teachers who went home and said to a friend, “This […]